So I guess we need to go with the status quo of the 1700s and assume us non-religious folk aren't covered under the US Constitution? I mean, the Constitution shouldn't be considered a living document or anything, lest we allow progress to ruin the name of stagnation.

When quoting people, a lot can be left up to interpretation.

I suggest that John Adams may have meant freedom as guaranteed/protected by the U.S. Constitution assumes that the people are responsible, and try to live by Christian principles. They are self-governing with God as their leader.

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are documents that work within the context of the Holy Bible.

Out of context, the Constitution has become perverted to be used by the immoral and the unjust to give them license, not liberty.

Liberty and freedom assume responsibility and uprightness.

When the people cannot be responsible in liberty and their exercise of freedom, that liberty and freedom must be reconsidered.